Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dili

quote:

If the US had their 1945 bombardment capability in place at Tarawa, then it would have been significantly easier in terms of losses on the US.

It's worth realising that the development of these ships came about precisely because it was challenging to effectively suppress beach defences

You still really don't get it... don't even have the concept of aimed fire vs not aimed that is done by these boats.
And what is again the range of those rockets?

Impossible to teach a monkey how to fly This game is rewriting history and even more so real life, some people have obviously been so long around they mismatch the game with reality and if reality doesn't suit the game's result then reality must be wrong.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alpha77

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dili

quote:

If the US had their 1945 bombardment capability in place at Tarawa, then it would have been significantly easier in terms of losses on the US.

It's worth realising that the development of these ships came about precisely because it was challenging to effectively suppress beach defences

You still really don't get it... don't even have the concept of aimed fire vs not aimed that is done by these boats.
And what is again the range of those rockets?

You can easily find that out Wiki is quite good for technical specs. You can read the warhead weight there, then take eg. a 50kg HE bomb as comparison and perhaps add 1-2 points for acceleration (ie. impact force higher than bomb?).

I have done the research already and in game the 4.5 (ground fired) rocket is seriously overrated even when you adjust the value a bit up for the rocket.

quote:

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alpha77

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dili

quote:

If the US had their 1945 bombardment capability in place at Tarawa, then it would have been significantly easier in terms of losses on the US.

It's worth realising that the development of these ships came about precisely because it was challenging to effectively suppress beach defences

You still really don't get it... don't even have the concept of aimed fire vs not aimed that is done by these boats.
And what is again the range of those rockets?

You can easily find that out Wiki is quite good for technical specs. You can read the warhead weight there, then take eg. a 50kg HE bomb as comparison and perhaps add 1-2 points for acceleration (ie. impact force higher than bomb?).

I have done the research already and in game the 4.5 (ground fired) rocket is seriously overrated even when you adjust the value a bit up for the rocket.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4.5-Inch_Beach_Barrage_Rocket

"Warhead weight 6.5 lb (2.9 kg)"

So 3 KG HE, look up value in game look up other HE shells / bombs and compare

In game named "4.5 inch M3 BBR"

quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alpha77

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dili

quote:

If the US had their 1945 bombardment capability in place at Tarawa, then it would have been significantly easier in terms of losses on the US.

It's worth realising that the development of these ships came about precisely because it was challenging to effectively suppress beach defences

You still really don't get it... don't even have the concept of aimed fire vs not aimed that is done by these boats.
And what is again the range of those rockets?

You can easily find that out Wiki is quite good for technical specs. You can read the warhead weight there, then take eg. a 50kg HE bomb as comparison and perhaps add 1-2 points for acceleration (ie. impact force higher than bomb?).

I have done the research already and in game the 4.5 (ground fired) rocket is seriously overrated even when you adjust the value a bit up for the rocket.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4.5-Inch_Beach_Barrage_Rocket

"Warhead weight 6.5 lb (2.9 kg)"

So 3 KG HE, look up value in game look up other HE shells / bombs and compare

In game named "4.5 inch M3 BBR"

everyone with the brain of a hamster can rate that LCI(G) deleting all troops on a heavily fortified island is something that works in the game but that annoying guy still posting in my AAR (wonder how many times he still wants to put his head into the toilet?) unfortunately misses the 3.8 gramms a hamster has... no need trying to tell him, he's one of those that mixes up the game with reality... there are also these same people claiming Corona would be all fake, he must be a comparable typus...

I wonder if I shouldn't block him anymore because all those Alu hats also make me laugh quite a lot, but usually only until a certain point when it gets too silly and he has long crossed that line... discussing is one thing but to discuss something one has to come to at least some concensus but if you are that far off it's just mood to discuss at all, see the Alu hats...

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alpha77
@MindM: Seems you are the type who wants always be right, so I just should forget about talking with you further. However you shot yourself in the foot already with re. the rocket issue with your own link to the Iwo operation, if you had bothered to read it like myself, the rockets DID not obliterate (or only disable) even 30-40% of defenders (est.) plus the troops felt that heavy directed fire from big naval guns was the main contributor to success. Not rockets, yes they helped and did their work for "beach supressioN"

quote:

...also you said yourself these weapons are for beach suppression, guess what ? Not all troops are at the beach and not in range of the rockets.

quote:

Also I do not see why the explosive force can not be compared to other shells or even bombs. HE is = HE there is not much difference in the filling of HE shells from rockets to bombs to shells and also not from say 1942 - 1945. Eg. TNT is still used today. Even the Wiki says that the rocket barrage "was comparable to a heavy mortar barrage"

quote:

..here another quote:
"Rocket artillery cannot usually match the accuracy and sustained rate of fire of conventional gun artillery. They may be capable of very destructive strikes by delivering a large mass of explosives simultaneously, thus increasing the shock effect and giving the target less time to take cover."

That only changed quite recently (1990s) with weapons like MLRS but these are also guided and LR rockets often with "intelligent" sub munitions.

But guess it is useless to show the real world to you

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

Yes, Soviet Guards Mortar's units were disbanded in 1941 because STAVKA were disappointed that they couldn't match the accuracy and fire rate of the regular artillery units...

Oh wait, no. They were fine with that because accuracy and sustained fire wasn't what these unguided rocket systems were designed to accomplish.

Never mind the fact that unguided rocket systems (with abysmal accuracy and poor fire rates compared to conventional artillery!) have stuck around till this day.

Throwing a lot of rockets that go boom at things still works. See the BM-21 and related systems, and none of your fancy sub-munitions or guidance systems there. Sometimes you just want to excavate football pitches with high explosives and then drive back home.

I'd like to challenge you to find me an account from combat where a unit is subject to heavy rocket bombardment and maintains complete combat effectiveness. It's a good challenge, but if it ever has happened I'm confident someone will have noted it :)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alpha77

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

Yes, Soviet Guards Mortar's units were disbanded in 1941 because STAVKA were disappointed that they couldn't match the accuracy and fire rate of the regular artillery units...

Oh wait, no. They were fine with that because accuracy and sustained fire wasn't what these unguided rocket systems were designed to accomplish.

Never mind the fact that unguided rocket systems (with abysmal accuracy and poor fire rates compared to conventional artillery!) have stuck around till this day.

Throwing a lot of rockets that go boom at things still works. See the BM-21 and related systems, and none of your fancy sub-munitions or guidance systems there. Sometimes you just want to excavate football pitches with high explosives and then drive back home.

I'd like to challenge you to find me an account from combat where a unit is subject to heavy rocket bombardment and maintains complete combat effectiveness. It's a good challenge, but if it ever has happened I'm confident someone will have noted it :)

Tbh I was already guessing that you would put words in my mouth and use "strawmans" arguments before opening the thread

I NEVER said that rockets were not effective and never talked about the Soviet ones at all - but perhaps I forgot about that and you can pinpoint where I said that Stalins Organs, BM21 etc. were rubbish. In fact for the cheaper cost in production they were very good for special circumstances like shorter range, area saturation and psychological effect etc.

In fact I think if you have "careless" troops out in the open these weapons might be among the most terrible to destroy them. But even adding some simple foxholes and troops being on alert changes that quite a bit. And Castors troops had 6 forts and invasion was spotted so troops expected an attack and were ready.
Also in Russia eg frozen ground added to their effect.


Rockets belong to artillery weapons, so their values in game can be compared to other artillery.

Nice day to you

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alpha77

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

Yes, Soviet Guards Mortar's units were disbanded in 1941 because STAVKA were disappointed that they couldn't match the accuracy and fire rate of the regular artillery units...

Oh wait, no. They were fine with that because accuracy and sustained fire wasn't what these unguided rocket systems were designed to accomplish.

Never mind the fact that unguided rocket systems (with abysmal accuracy and poor fire rates compared to conventional artillery!) have stuck around till this day.

Throwing a lot of rockets that go boom at things still works. See the BM-21 and related systems, and none of your fancy sub-munitions or guidance systems there. Sometimes you just want to excavate football pitches with high explosives and then drive back home.

I'd like to challenge you to find me an account from combat where a unit is subject to heavy rocket bombardment and maintains complete combat effectiveness. It's a good challenge, but if it ever has happened I'm confident someone will have noted it :)

Tbh I was already guessing that you would put words in my mouth and use "strawmans" arguments before opening the thread

quote:

I NEVER said that rockets were not effective and never talked about the Soviet ones at all - but perhaps I forgot about that and you can pinpoint where I said that Stalins Organs, BM21 etc. were rubbish. In fact for the cheaper cost in production they were very good for special circumstances like shorter range, area saturation and psychological effect etc.

quote:

In fact I think if you have "careless" troops out in the open these weapons might be among the most terrible to destroy them. But even adding some simple foxholes and troops being on alert changes that quite a bit.

quote:

And Castors troops had 6 forts and invasion was spotted so troops expected an attack and were ready.

quote:

Also in Russia eg frozen ground added to their effect.

quote:

Rockets belong to artillery weapons, so their values in game can be compared to other artillery.

quote:

then we can move the discussion on to if the results seen at Marcus are "out of whack". I'd say that they're not - the large number of disablements (vs destroyed squads) is consistent with the shock effects of artillery, amplifued by the IJ over stacking on Marcus.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dili

quote:

then we can move the discussion on to if the results seen at Marcus are "out of whack". I'd say that they're not - the large number of disablements (vs destroyed squads) is consistent with the shock effects of artillery, amplifued by the IJ over stacking on Marcus.

The rockets were not aimed, the system is crude being just stuck in the boat going up and down with sea waves, the fortifications would make them almost useless.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alpha77

FOLKS, today is a great day, I learned that there are 4 seasons from MM - otherwise not much tho.

quote:

But I still ask, so mere mortals like me or Castor or Dili etc. can not interprete the values in the database eg. compare soft attack with other devices just cause they are another (hidden?) class ? But immortals like MM (and Alfred ? ) can interpret the magic of the database values? I can not compare HE weight of shell (aka "soft attack") between eg. 4.2inch mortar and 4.5 inch rocket cause "Different devices, different code, different algorithms."

And perhaps even not the value of 105mm how vs. 105mm SP cause one is classed as art and the other as AFV. That would be stupid.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dili

quote:

then we can move the discussion on to if the results seen at Marcus are "out of whack". I'd say that they're not - the large number of disablements (vs destroyed squads) is consistent with the shock effects of artillery, amplifued by the IJ over stacking on Marcus.

The rockets were not aimed, the system is crude being just stuck in the boat going up and down with sea waves, the fortifications would make them almost useless.

quote:

quote:

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dili

quote:

then we can move the discussion on to if the results seen at Marcus are "out of whack". I'd say that they're not - the large number of disablements (vs destroyed squads) is consistent with the shock effects of artillery, amplifued by the IJ over stacking on Marcus.

The rockets were not aimed, the system is crude being just stuck in the boat going up and down with sea waves, the fortifications would make them almost useless.

Not all the troops would be in concrete forts/bunkers. Most would be in pits and trenches. An explosive hitting near the lip of a pit or trench would still cause some shock/pressure wave effect.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dili

quote:

then we can move the discussion on to if the results seen at Marcus are "out of whack". I'd say that they're not - the large number of disablements (vs destroyed squads) is consistent with the shock effects of artillery, amplifued by the IJ over stacking on Marcus.

The rockets were not aimed, the system is crude being just stuck in the boat going up and down with sea waves, the fortifications would make them almost useless.

Not all the troops would be in concrete forts/bunkers. Most would be in pits and trenches. An explosive hitting near the lip of a pit or trench would still cause some shock/pressure wave effect.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dili

quote:

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dili

quote:

then we can move the discussion on to if the results seen at Marcus are "out of whack". I'd say that they're not - the large number of disablements (vs destroyed squads) is consistent with the shock effects of artillery, amplifued by the IJ over stacking on Marcus.

The rockets were not aimed, the system is crude being just stuck in the boat going up and down with sea waves, the fortifications would make them almost useless.

Not all the troops would be in concrete forts/bunkers. Most would be in pits and trenches. An explosive hitting near the lip of a pit or trench would still cause some shock/pressure wave effect.

How is that an argument in face of casualities that this boats make, much higher than any other ship?

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5gGrkZ00Iwc

Worth watching for some of the footage here, before making judgements on what should be "realistic".

quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy
JACKPOT! I-15 now gets a shot at Bunker Hill and launches KAITENS! One of them slams into the carrier and immediately causes an ammo storage explosion... right after launching the Kaitens the sub fires a torp spread of four and another two Type 95 torps hit the carrier... wow, looks like Kaiten carrying subs first fire their Kaitens and right after a spread of torps, that makes a lot of torpedoes for an attack on a capital ship... effect of a Kaiten is huge, an ammo storage explosion and two more torps pretty much means that Bunker Hill is in sinking condition... BANZAI!!!

looks like copying IJN's real life sub strategy pays off another time... I-15 is heavily damaged but has a 30/70 chance to make a port in the Marianas if not attacked again... have never seen Kaitens in use before not to talk about one actually hit something, this attack is the prove they work...
[/color]

Ammo storage explosion on CV Bunker Hill

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nomad

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5gGrkZ00Iwc

Worth watching for some of the footage here, before making judgements on what should be "realistic".

Thank you for the link, very informative.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Evoken

Ah Mark Felton epitome of historical accuracy. Never shares his sources , overdramatizes everything , accused of stealing peoples work with no credits given , yeap thats the guy to go to. https://www.reddit.com/r/badhistory/comments/fnut9z/mark_felton_productions_plagiarizes_some_of_his/

quote:

Cant believe you guys are still insisting on these rockets work fine , M_M you are saying these casualties are just disabled squads , thats right but thats the expected result from first bombardements on an island from all ships , issue you dont see here is the 6k casualties caused , which is the success paramater for most bombardements , which even 10 BB's in a task force cant cause in best paramaters (both in an amphibious task force or in bombardement task force). Keep in mind Battleships are throwing hundreds times more lead to the enemy , has proper targeting equipment ,air or ground spotters for shell correction.

quote:

There is no doubt these rockets were usefull tools for amphibious operations but damage they are inflicting in Witp is disproportionate to every other naval gun , they are violating the standart of every other naval gun and bomb is subject to (which is soft attack = Effect/10) , if these weapons were brought down to standarts of Witp; They would still be effective , they would likely drive the disruption very high but wouldnt be the wonder weapon it currently is.

Seriously , to capture an atoll that is well guarded , you need to bombard , you need warships in amphibious task force to guard it , you need to soften enemy from air. But you dont need all of that if you just put together 20 of these in a task force and it will disable %90 of the defenders without any hussle.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dili

quote:

then we can move the discussion on to if the results seen at Marcus are "out of whack". I'd say that they're not - the large number of disablements (vs destroyed squads) is consistent with the shock effects of artillery, amplifued by the IJ over stacking on Marcus.

The rockets were not aimed, the system is crude being just stuck in the boat going up and down with sea waves, the fortifications would make them almost useless.

Not all the troops would be in concrete forts/bunkers. Most would be in pits and trenches. An explosive hitting near the lip of a pit or trench would still cause some shock/pressure wave effect.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nomad

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5gGrkZ00Iwc

Worth watching for some of the footage here, before making judgements on what should be "realistic".

Thank you for the link, very informative.

quote:

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy
JACKPOT! I-15 now gets a shot at Bunker Hill and launches KAITENS! One of them slams into the carrier and immediately causes an ammo storage explosion... right after launching the Kaitens the sub fires a torp spread of four and another two Type 95 torps hit the carrier... wow, looks like Kaiten carrying subs first fire their Kaitens and right after a spread of torps, that makes a lot of torpedoes for an attack on a capital ship... effect of a Kaiten is huge, an ammo storage explosion and two more torps pretty much means that Bunker Hill is in sinking condition... BANZAI!!!

looks like copying IJN's real life sub strategy pays off another time... I-15 is heavily damaged but has a 30/70 chance to make a port in the Marianas if not attacked again... have never seen Kaitens in use before not to talk about one actually hit something, this attack is the prove they work...
[/color]

Ammo storage explosion on CV Bunker Hill

First time I have seen a Kaiten hit in a real game. I've sandboxed them before, and built them in games, but never gotten a hit in a game yet ... Wow!!! Way cool.

quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy

quote:

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dili

quote:

then we can move the discussion on to if the results seen at Marcus are "out of whack". I'd say that they're not - the large number of disablements (vs destroyed squads) is consistent with the shock effects of artillery, amplifued by the IJ over stacking on Marcus.

The rockets were not aimed, the system is crude being just stuck in the boat going up and down with sea waves, the fortifications would make them almost useless.

Not all the troops would be in concrete forts/bunkers. Most would be in pits and trenches. An explosive hitting near the lip of a pit or trench would still cause some shock/pressure wave effect.

You don't need a concrete bunker to survive shelling with any ordnance like that. 75mm artillery was useless against any sort of entrenchement and so were these rockets. They were nothing more than suppressive but they were no killers unless you get caught in the open. What you needed against entrenched troops was heavy artillery, 150mm and up.

quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nomad

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5gGrkZ00Iwc

Worth watching for some of the footage here, before making judgements on what should be "realistic".

Thank you for the link, very informative.

I can only repeat myself ...

quote:

This is really going from ridicoulos into depressing as I had quite a good opinion about the people here and their real life knowledge when it comes down to all military stuff and WWII.